A youth sports blog written by Bob Cook. He's contributed to NBCSports.com, or MSNBC.com, if you prefer. He’s delivered sports commentaries for All Things Considered. For three years he wrote the weekly “Kick Out the Sports!” column for Flak Magazine.
Most importantly for this blog, Bob is a father of four who is in the throes of being a sports parent, a youth coach and a youth sports economy stimulator in an inner-ring suburb of Chicago. He reserves the right to change names to protect the innocent and the extremely, extremely guilty.
You can follow me at facebook.com/notgoingpro and twitter.com/notgoingpro. I'm endlessly fascinating.

It’s pretty easy to be mocked when you not only file a lawsuit because your child didn’t get the playing time you wanted — join the club! — especially when that lawsuit was filed as a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act case, as if the Dallas Lacrosse Academy was an athletic Mafia. Also, it’s easy to be mocked when it’s the second active lawsuit you have against the organization (a separate case is in state court). It’s also very easy to be mocked when your federal lawsuit starts like this…

Texas is no stranger to scandals involving sports teams. When lacrosse grew in popularity in Texas, it is not surprising that corrupt individuals looked for ways to profit from this sport that was new to Texas. The RICO Defendants in this case are those corrupt individuals.

…and when your complaint is a long, long, long recitation that portrays yourself as the “popular” coach who uncovered the truth that a veritable cabal of lacrosse powers-that-be with what you deem sketchy credentials declare “Billy Munck will never play varsity.” DUN-DUN-DUNNNNNNNN. It’s too late for poor Billy, who is toiling away at lacrosse for a non-scholarship Division III school, but Munck’s complaint says he’s fighting to protect his younger son, and I’m sure any coach would welcome with no trepidation whatsoever a player whose father has a history of filing lawsuits when his sons don’t get the playing time he wants.

I am sympathetic to arguments that parents can be too quick to sue over youth sports, especially when it comes to playing time. Munck certainly has the comfort with the legal system (though he’s not representing himself) and the finances, presumably, to pursue this type of case when many others wouldn’t, but he’s hardly the only parent to take a youth sports organization to court over a belief over unfair, if not conspiratorial, treatment over playing time, or making a team in the first place. Generally, I agree that issues of playing time are best left to coaches, and that parents are best served in having reasonable, non-confrontive conversations with them to get at the root as to why their children aren’t achieving as expected.

Adult outbursts … are the symptom and not the disease. Perhaps the most troublesome problem with some community youth sports programs today – favoritism and systemic unfairness – usually produces no public confrontation, witnesses, or headlines. In too many sports programs, winning a position on the board of directors is a key to landing a son or daughter on the right team, and then to assuring that the team that gets choice hours for games and practices. The board appoints not only coaches who will seek reappointment the following year, but also schedulers who might want something special for their own children’s teams. It does not take much ingenuity for appointees to figure out which side of the bread their butter is on.

I have rarely served on a youth hockey board that was comprised entirely of members who remained genuinely committed to the best interests of every boy and girl. In all fairness, many board members – probably most, in the typical association – do care about children and teams other than their own. But I have also found that one or more members, sometimes a solid bloc, want no part of equity. They know that their short-term involvement will end when their children’s playing days end, and they may see board service as a way to position their own children and their own teams favorably, even at the expense of other children.

Sometimes those favoring parents are on the board in the first place because they figure if they don’t get involved, their children will be left out in the athletic cold. There’s an assumption, not always unfounded, that merely being a supportive parent who claps politely can be a detriment. Munck’s lawsuit — the claims of which, no surprise, are being denied by the lacrosse academy and its leaders — is merely this conflict writ larger.

Is there a way to prevent these conflicts from happening? I would say it’s incumbent upon the parents first to be as objective as possible — as hard as that can be — when looking at their child’s athletic career. Actually, the first step is to stop thinking of it as a career. On the coaching and youth organization side, I would recommend that everyone be transparent as possible about decision-making, leave the door open to conversations, and let the parents speak their piece (however unreasonable they feel it might be) before responding. While this won’t prevent every lawsuit involving playing time, this strategy — for both sides — might at least keep the bad blood and court fees to a minimum.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

In my extended and vast experience with every level of lacrosse, I have learned first-hand that there is indeed a lacrosse mafia. Like it or not, it exists and operates almost point for point like the unsavory details of this lawsuit. The members of the “lacrosse mafia” tend to be those who see the game as their golden goose and exploit players and their families in their pursuit of profit. These carpet beggars are everywhere and doing great damage to this great game as they swarm the country like locusts. Lacrosse has a problem that the governing bodies need to address. They appear to be aware but the significant and continue growth of the sport make it more like the wild west than Mayberry. In my opinion, Mr. Munck did himself and this legitimate claim a huge disservice by crafting the lawsuit in such a way that it reads like the “Crazy Lacrosse Dad”…and yes, they are everywhere too. But…guys like those named is this lawsuit do exist, they do hurt kids and they do mess with young lives. I am grateful that Mr. Munck but his neck on the chopping block and is exposing the likes of these kinds of people. Maybe the threat of parents retaliating legally will quell the opportunist who don’t give a hoot about the kids.